Ask the referee

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Lawrie Madden said:

As ive just posted in the other thread it was the 4th Official who told Robinson it was a definite Yellow as Robinson said he didn't have a clear view of it 

Bizarrely the 4th official also told Robinson that in his opinion Palmer was playacting a bit .My brother was stood right at the side of where the conversation took place waiting to stretcher off Palmer if needed and heard it clearly (Ambulanceman )

 

Hope the 4th official was proud of himself for this when Palmer hobbled past him, unable to walk unassisted. 

 

Shouldn't really have mattered whether Palmer was able to continue or not as the challenge was late and out of control and studs first which should be enough for a red but for the 4th official to refer to play acting in this case is really really poor. 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Guest

[cowl]

11 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

I know I said I can see your point but it didn't apply on Sunday because we had no hope of catching them on the counter when they had 5 men at the back all 2nd half. They used Hoilett as an outlet to give them some possession, it didn't leave them open to a counter attack at any point. If they had less men they would have had less of an outlet.

 

How many shots on target did we have 2nd half? This would not have got any worse against less players.

 

The holes that can be manipulated don't just have to originate in the defence though, and besides, it's about having some variation in the attack. You don't score if you don't shoot; sure, but if you only keep trying to find the same ways to score, you're likely to keep getting the same results; we are all too often guilty of this as it is (perhaps most teams are at this level).

 

And you make it sound as though Cardiff couldn't be more defensive than they already were - of course they could've been. We've all seen teams enter into a siege mentality when going down to 10; it's not just the team shape that collectively changes, the individual mentality of each of the players seems to change. It's different than when players seem to sh*t themselves because they've got a lead to protect (our speciality), it's more like they're each inspired by the single mission of protecting the goal and through this they ‘dig-in’.

 

Furthermore, this was the view I took at the time of the incident on 60 minutes. It's based on how the game appeared to me at that moment in time, and factors in all the frustrations and hopes I'd been experiencing up to that point. Not nearly half as bad as against Stoke, but the team yet again didn't seem remotely on it. I'm not saying they weren't physically trying, but there just seemed to be no mental enthusiasm for the game from the players. You hope for a reaction after the restart but there'd been nothing. I didn't feel there were any obvious answers likely to come from the bench either. Really, the prospect of playing against 10 men invigorated by the siege mentality didn't at that moment feel like an opportunity to get the upper hand; it just felt like it would be another barrier to players that already seemed to lack the will to make things happen. The prospect of having twice as many shots against 10 men than we would have had against 11, wouldn't have made me think at the time that it would have been anything other than twice as many misses.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

The holes that can be manipulated don't just have to originate in the defence though, and besides, it's about having some variation in the attack. You don't score if you don't shoot; sure, but if you only keep trying to find the same ways to score, you're likely to keep getting the same results; we are all too often guilty of this as it is (perhaps most teams are at this level).

 

And you make it sound as though Cardiff couldn't be more defensive than they already were - of course they could've been. We've all seen teams enter into a siege mentality when going down to 10; it's not just the team shape that collectively changes, the individual mentality of each of the players seems to change. It's different than when players seem to sh*t themselves because they've got a lead to protect (our speciality), it's more like they're each inspired by the single mission of protecting the goal and through this they ‘dig-in’.

 

Furthermore, this was the view I took at the time of the incident on 60 minutes. It's based on how the game appeared to me at that moment in time, and factors in all the frustrations and hopes I'd been experiencing up to that point. Not nearly half as bad as against Stoke, but the team yet again didn't seem remotely on it. I'm not saying they weren't physically trying, but there just seemed to be no mental enthusiasm for the game from the players. You hope for a reaction after the restart but there'd been nothing. I didn't feel there were any obvious answers likely to come from the bench either. Really, the prospect of playing against 10 men invigorated by the siege mentality didn't at that moment feel like an opportunity to get the upper hand; it just felt like it would be another barrier to players that already seemed to lack the will to make things happen. The prospect of having twice as many shots against 10 men than we would have had against 11, wouldn't have made me think at the time that it would have been anything other than twice as many misses.

 

That's a long way round admitting your theory didn't lead to anything positive! 

[Beauchief Owl]

4 hours ago, cowl said:

 

It was the view I took at the time.

 

Are you new to football or something?

I think just about every team would prefer to play against 10 men rather than 11, or are you new to football or something? 

[Beauchief Owl]

2 hours ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Hope the 4th official was proud of himself for this when Palmer hobbled past him, unable to walk unassisted. 

 

Shouldn't really have mattered whether Palmer was able to continue or not as the challenge was late and out of control and studs first which should be enough for a red but for the 4th official to refer to play acting in this case is really really poor. 

Totally agree. Derby player got sent off yesterday for a less serious tackle yet pundits agreed it was the correct decision. We were just unfortunate with the ref we got, (as we also were in the reverse match at Cardiff when Flint's antics were deemed acceptable when clearly offside).

[cowl]

1 hour ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

That's a long way round admitting your theory didn't lead to anything positive! 

 

I'm sat in the stand. How many of your theories have lead to something positive on the pitch? 

[cowl]

1 hour ago, Beauchief Owl said:

I think just about every team would prefer to play against 10 men rather than 11, or are you new to football or something? 

 

Our last two games that have seen the opposition reduced to 10 worked out for us, so not only am I not new to football but I happen to be able to do something which I'm surprised another Wednesday fan can't do and that's actually remember some of the past incidents of our games and recognize what seems to be a failure of the team which is to take advantage of 10 men.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

Our last two games that have seen the opposition reduced to 10 worked out for us, so not only am I not new to football but I happen to be able to do something which I'm surprised another Wednesday fan can't do and that's actually remember some of the past incidents of our games and recognize what seems to be a failure of the team which is to take advantage of 10 men.

 

What about when teams have been reduced to 10 men against us at Hillsborough? Do we tend to get better results against them then or do we have a worse record against 10 than we do against 11 at home? 

 

You can keep pointing to the odd games like Millwall if you like but these stand out because of not beating 10 men, the general pattern will be that we do get better results when the opposition go a man down for any sustained length of time.

[Inspector Lestrade]

I just want to go the game not see any time wasting, buggering about with VAR, having to listen to refs explaining their decisions. Just watch the game.

 

Refs have always made mistakes nothing new live with it. 

[agentwalker]

said it before, we need to take the rugby stance on this and Mic them up. They then have to grow a pair and give some kind of explanation that we can all hear. Might be utter testicles but at least we know what their thinking and the crowd can respond in kind. It will also sort out all these tail tuggers whi get in the ref's face.

 

this should have been done way before VAR in my opinion. It doesn't slow the game down and it adds clarity.

Edited December 31, 2019 by agentwalker

[cowl]

2 hours ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

What about when teams have been reduced to 10 men against us at Hillsborough? Do we tend to get better results against them then or do we have a worse record against 10 than we do against 11 at home? 

 

You can keep pointing to the odd games like Millwall if you like but these stand out because of not beating 10 men, the general pattern will be that we do get better results when the opposition go a man down for any sustained length of time.

 

As I've said, the view I took is based entirely on the game that had just been unfolding in front of me. It was already a frustrating game. We were behind, playing without urgency, and there was little hope from the bench.

 

If you can pick out enough other similar games that match up to this, played with this core set of players, against opposition that go down to 10, then maybe you'd be able to present a sizeable enough sample size on which to base statistics. As is it, it's just a sense that with these players, playing as they have been these last few games, and the way they seemed to have been going about the game up to that point, that Cardiff going down to 10 would have worked against us rather than for us.

[bobness]

On 30/12/2019 at 10:27, Buddy Repperton said:

If the EFL keep assigning Robinson to Wednesday matches - they won't need to deduct points from us anyway!

 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

As I've said, the view I took is based entirely on the game that had just been unfolding in front of me. It was already a frustrating game. We were behind, playing without urgency, and there was little hope from the bench.

 

If you can pick out enough other similar games that match up to this, played with this core set of players, against opposition that go down to 10, then maybe you'd be able to present a sizeable enough sample size on which to base statistics. As is it, it's just a sense that with these players, playing as they have been these last few games, and the way they seemed to have been going about the game up to that point, that Cardiff going down to 10 would have worked against us rather than for us.

 

And as it panned out we lost to 11 men and struggled to register a shot on target in the 2nd half. Had they gone down to 10 it might have given us some urgency and it would certainly have lifted the crowd.

 

If we are in the same situation against Hull tomorrow I won't be hoping that their player just gets booked if they commit a similar foul.

[Paul G Wisbech Owl]

Don't understand how the assistant on the South or the 4 th official saw this as yellow, both should have appointments at Specsavers as soon as possible.

 

[cowl]

2 hours ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

And as it panned out we lost to 11 men and struggled to register a shot on target in the 2nd half. Had they gone down to 10 it might have given us some urgency and it would certainly have lifted the crowd.

 

If we are in the same situation against Hull tomorrow I won't be hoping that their player just gets booked if they commit a similar foul.

 

Of course not; why would you? I only ever said that despite obviously deserving to be sent off that I “wasn't entirely disappointed” to see that he wasn't sent off and gave my reasons for taking that view. Reasons, it seems, that upon expansion, and after you first struggled to see at all, you later acknowledged, only then later to back-peddle to the position of merely whether they were applicable to Sunday's game (a position taken, clearly and confidently, with the full benefit of hindsight).

[Ever the pessimist]

When someone (Harris?) caught one of their players late in the first half their bench were up screaming blue murder.

 

Hoillet’s was much worse but our bench was more reserved and theirs made sure they were first to the ref / assistants. Not pleasant but we need to nastier/ more cynical 

[dorian gray]

On 30/12/2019 at 10:14, Mr Hooper said:

Always said this, they make players come out in an interview straight after a game.

 

Why not do the same to refs?

it would 100% prove beyond doubt their individual competence levels, and the average standard of official that fifa and uefa already know we have, and show when holding a competition by appointing none

the old farts that run the fa want hounding out, and start again, with whoever is running it having a willingness to look at itself as opposed to everyone else BUT themselves, as they continue to pat themselves on the back.

who the **** thinks a cart load of old non boat rocking, establishment loving farts are needed to run the most popular sport in the country, and world other than in the uk?

our governing body is a joke.